Argon

As Seth, #6, said, those aren't real critiques. The biographical criticism is a brief overview of his beliefs and how they influenced elements in the game, such as a desire to create a positive as opposed to a negative impact in people's lives, but it doesn't cite or proffer any events or experiences in his life explaining why this would be the case.

The New Critical criticism isn't an actual criticism. It goes nowhere. The article describes two lines of thought but then doesn't take them anywhere. In effect, it is not a critique at all. Stancl says a compilation of all insights of a videogame would be too tedious. True, but couldn't he follow one of his ideas to a conclusion?

"The player knows that the King/the designer is watching the whole time he’s playing because the King will make comments like “It was boring to watch this whole time,” perhaps making another comment on how much a designer hates their game by the time they’re done with it."

That statement isn't even valid in the school of New Criticism because it assumes the designer is making a statement through their game. A New Critic ignores discussion of a designer's intention.

Games consist of a number of "critique-able" elements, as WizarDru (12) and Tom (16) have said, but the gameplay, the basis of the game, is designed for efficiency and ease of use. Nothing too deep to read into there, unless you study ergonomics.

I have no problem with critiques so long as their authors take them as seriously as they'd like their readers to do.

Or, it could be an April Fool's Joke.